Talk:Second Crusade/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bernard preaches

I changed Rudolfs name to the English version,I think its a more common way to call someone Rudolf, its how Runciman uses it. Added some quotes from Bernard. Runciman doesnt mention Rudolf traveling to France, stirred up trouble in Germany. Didnt run spell check yet. Thats it for the moment. Stbalbach 23:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: Put as featured article

This article is comprehensive and very informative indeed. Obviously it should be put into featured articles after First Crusade. Or maybe we can put Crusades as featured article series? Another suggestion is a series of Crusade features, as listed in here.

Other issues

Ideally, this should become a featured article, like we did with the First Crusade. What else needs to be done?

  • Siege of Edessa - this is certainly important, and a separate, expanded article can be made
  • Quantum praedecessores - we have a number of other Papal bull articles, so we should have this one too
  • Battle of Dorylaeum - currently this is just a small blurb on the 1097 battle article...I'm not sure it's worth making a separate page
  • Any of the other battles in Anatolia - same...are they worth making new pages for?
  • Council of Acre - probably not worth a separate article, the only interesting info is who was there.
  • Siege of Ascalon - since it basically didn't happen at all, it's definitely not as important as the 1099 battle and the 1153 siege.
  • Siege of Lisbon - should probably have a separate article, it's almost a separate crusade and fits in with the History of Portugal articles
  • Siege of Damascus - already done
  • Northern Crusades - I'm not sure what we should do with this part. The "Wendish Crusade" is specifically from the 1140s and is just the first of the "Northern Crusades." Should it be separated?

Anything else we should do? Adam Bishop 06:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for helping this become FA. It's allready well along mostly thanks to your work. Will try to help when and where I can, this is beyond my immediate realm of knowledge. Northern Crusades seems like a difficult subject in general, obscure topic. BTW I think there is a movie out now that covers events around either the 3rd of 4th crusade (Ridley Scott!) it would be an "in demand" article (although the reviews are mixed). Stbalbach 05:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, Kingdom of Heaven - it has an article, as do most of the characters, and some lively discussions already :) Adam Bishop 06:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think all the important bits are here...Stbalbach, is there any more work you want to do (or anyone else, for that matter)? Should we put it on Peer Review now? Adam Bishop 19:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's really not bad youve obviously put a lot of time and work into it. There are a couple areas of the text with open questions, wondering why certain events or actions happened that could benefit from clarification, at least questions that came up for me, having not read anything else on the subject yet. I think it's ready for peer review and will try to help out with anything that comes up there. Stbalbach 19:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bishop of Hugh of Jabala

is this a Typo , should it be Bishop Hugh of Jabala? is Syria ment by Jabala ?--Mayz 23:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a typo, thanks. Jabala was a crusader diocese under the Patriarch of Antioch, so it is in modern Syria, but it doesn't mean "bishop of Syria" if that's what you're asking. Adam Bishop 04:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure I found the source for that deleted image, a frame capture from a BBC documentary on Medieval art, but the funny thing was it wasnt King Louis, at least as presented in the show. Stbalbach 21:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Lisbon is not in the Mediterranean (Featured article)

It's just a little thing, but it might lead to wrong ideas. In the Featured article presentation it reads: "The only success came on the opposite end of the Mediterranean, where English crusaders, on the way by ship to the Holy Land, fortuitously stopped and helped capture Lisbon in 1147."

I suggest something like: "The only success came outside of the Mediterranean, where English crusaders, on the way by ship to the Holy Land, fortuitously stopped and helped capture Lisbon in 1147." (I posted this already in the discussion of the Main Page. I guess you could change both, don't you think?)

Which Laodicea

In The section of departure of french, it says "They reached Laodicea" , which Laodicea is ment here?-- 14:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The one in Turkey, I've fixed it now. Adam Bishop 18:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

second crusades timeline

I believe that second crusade lasted until 1187 until Saladin captured Jerusalem following the battle of hattin. And also battle of hattin, Battle of Cresson and seige of jerusalem must be explained in brief as this were the outcome of Second Crusade and the defeat of Crusaders and the victory of muslim forces,the whole points are missed. All details are given in detail about prelude to the second crusade but not its outcome.

To be specific second crusade started in 1147 and lasted till when.So the answer might be from 1147-1187 (which is disputed by many people to hide the facts that crusaders lost) until the capture jerusalem by saladin which caused a third crusade 1189-1192

Mujeerkhan 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It lasted until 1148 when everyone went back home. Of course there were many other smaller pilgrimages and expeditions after that, but we don't number them as crusades. The outcome of the Second Crusade is mentioned at the end, along with the eventual capture of Jerusalem. Adam Bishop 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Sigurd I of Norway? He led a dispatchment of knights to The Holy Land during the First Crusade. In response to the "First European kings to lead a crusade" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Tvet (talkcontribs) 20:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not numbered as a crusade either, for whatever reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Looks like will need to be brought to FAR, currently white space in the lead and misplaced portal - will need to change on conventions for portal placing. Potential overuse of flags per MOS:FLAG.Tom (talk)


Isn't it time to correct the idea that the assault on Damascus was an attack on an ally? The current consensus is that the Burids had broken their alliance with the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1147, when they aligned with the Zengids and captured Bosra after an inconclusive battle with the Kingdom. (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've already corrected it everywhere! I think there is still consensus that it was a "blunder" though. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus that it was a failure. Strategically, it was the only real possible route given the circumstances. The "blunder" comes mainly from Runciman, I think (if broadly repeated) who was...shall we say...a bit tendencious in these matter :) (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)